Daniel James wrote:
> In article news:<pan.2005.08.02.07.20.14.261312@spammer.die>, Mark
> Healey wrote:
>> From what I've seen it is just a case of people who got used to
>> G1 griping about having to change to G2.
>
> That's certainly not true in my case. We all have to learn to use new
> things, and learn new ways of using old things, all the time in
> computing; it's not a novelty, and where there is a benefit for the
> user it's not resented.
>
> G2 is demonstrably inferior to G1 for rapid entry, almost entirely
> because there are some characters that now require two strokes.
>
>> The loss of single stroke characters was bad but unavoidable.
>
> "Unavoidable"? Palm could have ignored Xerox's preposterous claims and
> carried on with G1. Xerox eventually lost the lawsuit, after all. Even
> if you allow that Palm were sensible to consider the possibility that
> justice might not have prevailed, and so changing to G2 may be seen as
> a justifiable precaution, there is no reason not to change back now.
>
>> Ultimately it is a religious issue.
>
> I'm not sure what the issue really is ... if it were really about the
> relative merits of G1 and G2 then G2 would have vaished without trace
> the day Xerox lost the lawsuit (to be replaced by G3, which would have
> the oncsreen writing and centre-caps of G2 with the strokes of G1).
> There is clearly some other (possibly religious) reason for Palm
> sticking with the mess they have at present.
>
> Let us hope they see the light soon.
Palm must have stuck with what seemed safer at the time. It is also possible
that they had some G2 advocates at the time of the lawsuit, so they decided
to go ahead with it. Given the bad reputation associated with being led to
court, I don't think they made a miserable decision, but it affects
existing customers quite badly. I am lucky to have gotten hold of a
Tungsten T so that G2 mess stays away from me. I don't want to change my
habits, especially if they are unproductive. Those who made the transition
will defend it, but it's no better than chewing an onion.
Going on with Graffiti 1 would have had a negative effect on the worried
investors. Linux have similar issues with SCO who claim that part of the
kernel is their intellectual property. So-called Linux friends such as IBM
have been taken to court because of that very same issue.
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz
http://Schestowitz.com
|
|
